shining example of Liberal policies on humanitarianism

cawacko said:
Homelessness has been a big issue/problem here for quite awhile. A good portion of our local economy is tourism and we have very aggressive panhandlers that literally scare many tourists away. The amount of urination/defication on the streets is an issue as well. So my point in bringing that up is to show the trouble that is homelessness here yet we never passed a sit/lie law based on them.

The punks on Haight St are mostly teenage (non homeless) kids that either live in the City or worse, come in from outside the City to cause trouble. They hang out on the sidewalks and ask for money (again these are non homeless kids) and harass people. It's been going on for awhile with the merchants and people who live there complaining. It finally culminated in this sit/lie ballot measure which passed.

It's definitely a controversial measure but ultimately the devil is in the details in terms of how it is enforced. So far there have been no complaints of cops going after the homeless. It is still so new that we haven't seen (or at least I haven't seen) what effect, if any, it has had on Haight St.

My comment about liberal people turning conservative was directed at the non homeless teenage punks that sit on people's doorsteps harassing passer by's as well as the homeowners. No matter how liberal you claim to be I would have a hard time imaging you thinking its ok for a group of four or five teenage kids harassing you and threatening to take you money/groceries/whatever at your doorstep.
Click to expand...

Then your comment is just a stupid baseless insult...ok
 
Voltaire said:
Try to keep up with me here...

1. You are opposed to the government legislating morality as it pertains to sex and abortion.

2. You support government legislating morality as it pertains to charity/generosity.

3. In other words, you hypocritically believe it is acceptable to impose your morality on others.

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
Click to expand...

I'm capable of 'keeping up'. But I am not capable of deciphering hypocrisies and conflicting beliefs.

1) Sex and abortion are two different things. Expand.

2) I am opposed to legislating homelessness as being a crime.

3) You folks on the right don't seem to have a problem legislating what a woman can or can't do with her own uterus or who a person can or can't marry. Or aren't those hypocrisies up for discussion?

Also, I see you used bold for your 'Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816'

I looked up your letter, Joseph Milligan and selected text at the Library of Congress, the Papers of Thomas Jefferson at The University of Virginia and Monticello.org

It appears Joseph Milligan is someone Jefferson ordered some books from and there is a letter on August 17, 1815 where Jefferson gives directions for mailing a shipment of books.
http://search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/u3538896

I also looked it up Joseph Milligan at the University of Virginia Library
http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=TSJN-index-21-14-774&mode=TOC

There are 2 letters one to a JAMES Milligan and one from a JAMES Milligan. NONE to or from a Joseph Milligan.

Joseph Milligan is a member of the American rock band Anberlin. He is the group's lead guitarist, one of the lead songwriters.
 
1) Sex and abortion are two different things. Expand.
Click to expand...

In context, both are examples of areas of private life in which liberals oppose interference by the State, a view with which I fully agree. While it is certainly the duty of government to protect the innocent, and that a sensible line can be drawn (e.g. the bipartisan ban on partial birth abortion), it occurs to me that a government war on abortion would be no more successful than the government's war on drugs or terrorism.

2) I am opposed to legislating homelessness as being a crime.
Click to expand...

I neither implied nor accused you of any such thing. My point is that you believe it is acceptable to impose your morality onto others by way of confiscating and redistributing wealth. You went as far as to quote a religious text to support this view (of robbing from the rich to give to the poor), and yet you criticize those who wish to impose their view of morality in regard to abortion, homosexuality, etc.

And that is what makes you a hypocrite. Since you profess to be a Christian (I, too, am a Christian), perhaps this is a language you will understand:

"Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?" (Romans 2:1-3 ESV)

3) You folks on the right don't seem to have a problem legislating what a woman can or can't do with her own uterus or who a person can or can't marry. Or aren't those hypocrisies up for discussion?
Click to expand...

I'm more than willing to discuss the hypocrisy of the religious right, but that is a discussion for another thread. I will say that I find no common ground with them on the issues you mentioned, if that is what you were implying. I am pro-choice and I don't give a damn who you or anyone else wants to marry.

There are 2 letters one to a JAMES Milligan and one from a JAMES Milligan. NONE to or from a Joseph Milligan.
Click to expand...

The full text of the letter can be found in "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Being His Autobiography, Correspondence, Reports, Messages, Addresses, And Other Writings, Official And Private." This volume was "Published by the order of the joint committee of Congress on the library, from the original manuscripts." The statement in question is printed on Pg. 574 - 575:

http://bit.ly/hP0ggp

"To this a single observation shall yet be added. Whether property alone, and the whole of what each citizen possesses, shall be subject to contribution, or only its surplus after satisfying his first wants, or whether the faculties of body and mind shall contribute also from their annual earnings, is a question to be decided. But, when decided, and the principle settled, it is to be equally and fairly applied to all. To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whoso fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it."

Jefferson continues, "If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it."

Joseph Milligan is a member of the American rock band Anberlin. He is the group's lead guitarist, one of the lead songwriters.
Click to expand...

Um, okay. Thanks for letting me know.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/03/15/san-francisco-police-begin-enforcing-sitlie-law/



so much for all that empathy on the homeless situation
Click to expand...

That's actually a conservative measure. There was a San Fransisco mayor who, in office, declared a whole bunch of "homeless rights". He was extremely unpopular, and derided by conservatives nationwide. I imagine this just brings SF closer in line with what other cities have been doing for a long time anyway.
 
Beefy said:
its not about empathy, sympathy or any other thing you blue blooded numb skulls have no idea about and don't practice.

There is a certain pragmatism in reality.

Let me ask you this. Should all homeless people be free to harass whomever they want wherever they want?

Most homeless do not do this mind you, but you seem to want to believe that they should have the right to do so.

Let me ask you this further. What do you do to help the homeless people that need help? Tell me and I'll tell you what I do.

But armchair generalizing from your ivory tower about what should and shouldn't be done because you're too lazy and stupid to recognize that there's two sides is flat lame fool.

And you indeed are a fool.
Click to expand...

There are two sides. The pro-human side, and the anti-human side which will be, very practically, purged during the Socialist revolution.
 
King of 32DDD said:
The human principles that matter, when discussing American government, are the principles of American government. They are a little different than your average, garden variety politics of lesser nations, Bfgrhfduibfierb.
Click to expand...

Human dignity is universal laws that come before everything when discussing anything on Earth. If someone does not recognize the validity of human dignity, they should not be recognized as human, as should be disposed of as the animals they want so much to emulate.
 
Voltaire said:
Try to keep up with me here...

1. You are opposed to the government legislating morality as it pertains to sex and abortion.

2. You support government legislating morality as it pertains to charity/generosity.

3. In other words, you hypocritically believe it is acceptable to impose your morality on others.

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
Click to expand...

I believe that society is justified in taxing in order to defend the right of property in the case of police. I also believe that society is justified in taxing in order to defend the principal of human life and dignity, which necessitates universal healthcare. I see no more moralism in one than the other.
 
cawacko said:
This has been a huge controversy locally. It was passed by voters during the past election. We have a huge homeless problem and this law was really focused on Haight St (aka hippie central) where a bunch of punk kids would hang out on the streets and harass shoppers and home owners. No matter how liberal one might be when they pay $800k for a home and a bunch of punk kids are sitting on their front doorsteps harassing people, including them, they turn more conservative real quickly.
Click to expand...

Why do you groan this response Watermark?
 
Voltaire said:
"If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it."
Click to expand...

Property is not a law of nature.
 
Glorious Watermark XVII said:
Because you seemed to be implying that conservatism is practical, which is impossible.
Click to expand...

Well some people do take it as a badge of honor to have shit and urine on their front doorstep.

But I can't even take credit for my comment. I was parroting what local progressives have been saying about the Democrats who voted yes on sit/lie law. Essentially calling them sellouts and acting like conservatives. Seems like your problem is with your local progressive brothers.

I do like the ideological purity of a 20 year old though.
 
Glorious Watermark XVII said:
I believe that society is justified in taxing in order to defend the right of property in the case of police. I also believe that society is justified in taxing in order to defend the principal of human life and dignity, which necessitates universal healthcare. I see no more moralism in one than the other.
Click to expand...

Well, please don't go blowing up any abortion clinics while you're on this tangent, WM...
 
Glorious Watermark XVII said:
I believe that society is justified in taxing in order to defend the right of property
Click to expand...

I agree, so long as property is taxed at the same rate per acre, regardless of location, and that structures/improvements not be taxed. My parents' property taxes went up because they put up a new fence in their front yard. This is absurd.
 
Glorious Watermark XVII said:
Property is not a law of nature.
Click to expand...
It most certainly is a law of nature. It is natural that man, just as any other creature, would guard it's possessions from outsiders. This is one of the most basic biological instincts because it helps ensure that there were be means of survival (whatever they might be in the particular case) for future generations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top